Nalirifox vs folfirinox

by I Garajová 2024 Cited by 7Progressive disease was observed for 9.9% in the NALIRIFOX group vs. 14.5 Modified FOLFIRINOX versus S-1 as second-line chemotherapy in gemcitabine

In the European setting, the costs of NALIRIFOX are more than 25 times higher than FOLFIRINOX. This difference in cost is mainly driven by the

FOLFIRINOX versus g. First-line NALIRIFOX shows improvement in OS and PFS in metastatic pancreatic

FOLFIRINOX), NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar, but rather exposes patients and health-care systems to financial toxicities.

Seems relevant to resurface Dr Andrew Ko's observation at asco23 that orders of magnitude separate the cost of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX ‼️

The only difference between Nalirifox and Folfirinox is the formulation of irinotecan used. In Nalirifox, the irinotecan has been encapsulated

We conducted an analysis of oncologic benefits and costs of NALIRIFOX vs. FOLFIRINOX. Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using partitioned survival analysis with three health states: progression-free, progression, and death.

ratio for NALIRIFOX vs. FOLFIRINOX was $1,368,937. Conclusions: In this modeling analysis, NALIRIFOX is associated with improvement in PFS and QALY. The analysis highlights the importance of AE management for improving quality of life and cost in the recipients of FOLFIRINOX. The economic value for use of NALIRIFOX is very high and outside of any

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. The results suggest that NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX have similar efficacy and safety profiles, while gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel is inferior.